Chertoff not ready to require box security devices
U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials say they do not intend to mandate that all international containers entering the country be outfitted with electronic tamper-detection devices, and instead will require by Oct. 15 that containers be secured with a standard bolt seal, as specified in recent legislation.
The position sets up a possible showdown with the House Homeland Security Committee, whose chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, insists that DHS has ignored congressional direction to establish container security standards.
The dispute centers on the interpretation of the SAFE Port Act in 2006, which called for DHS to develop minimum cargo security standards by March 2007. Congress gave DHS the option of studying whether electronic security devices that can detect any opening of the container doors during transit are technically feasible and should be included in the standards. But Thompson and others on Capitol Hill contend that their intent was that cargo security standards mean container security devices (CSD). Democrats added a default provision to last summer’s 9/11 Implementation Bill requiring DHS to issue a rule by Oct. 15 that all containers have an ISO-certified high-security mechanical bolt seal if no container security device standard is in place by mid-April.
The use of bolt seals is already the norm for the majority of shipments today, according to industry officials.
Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff told Thompson, in a Dec. 12 letter obtained by American Shipper, that the department does not intend to issue an interim final rule by the April 1 deadline set in the 9/11 law.
“Therefore, effective Oct. 15, 2008, we expect to have the requirement in place mandating that all containers be secured with a standard bolt seal,” Chertoff wrote.
Chertoff repeated the department’s position that CSDs have not yet proven effective enough in an operational environment, and that industry is concerned about the cost of the equipment, logistical challenges such as installing local radio frequency readers or how the consignee should return the devices to the sender, and delays that could result as border officers respond to alarms.
He noted that the SAFE Port Act and the 9/11 Act encouraged DHS to move ahead with development and implementation of CSDs, but added, “It is important to note that neither law prescribes a clear path for their development and use.”
DHS officials assert in the letter and in interviews that the department has met the requirements of the SAFE Port Act by submitting a notification letter to Congress on CSDs last May in lieu of issuing minimum cargo security standards.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection last week issued a Request for Information in which it laid out for the first time technical standards it wants device makers to meet and how it plans to evaluate the technology for possible certification in certain cargo security programs.
The technical requirements document described four specific scenarios that CBP and DHS believe have potential to produce security benefits. CBP, in partnership with vendors, will test the devices that meet initial technical standards in the following operational environments:
' A supply chain from a certified secure Mexican manufacturer in the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism from the point of loading to a port of entry along the southern border.
' An in-transit scenario involving high-risk commodities in maritime containers as they travel in-bond via Transportation and Exportation (T&E) entry from a West Coast seaport to a land border port along the southern border.
' Another in-transit scenario involving high-risk agriculture products in-bond via Transportation and Exportation (T&E) entry through the United States from either Canada to Mexico or Mexico to Canada.
' A maritime scenario involving containers that are scanned overseas at a Secure Freight Initiative port and laden aboard a vessel bound for the United States.
Those scenarios dovetail with recent statements by CBP Deputy Commissioner Jayson Ahern that the agency is interested in using CSDs in limited applications such as in-bond, C-TPAT and Secure Freight Initiative shipments, and cross-border truck lanes from Mexico.
In-bond shipments, backed by a guarantee to pay duties at a later time, can move to inland destinations without official customs clearance at the port of arrival. The Secure Freight Initiative is a pilot program underway in a half-dozen overseas ports to test the feasibility and benefit of scanning and checking radiation in all sea boxes moving through a particular facility to the United States.
Chertoff’s letter did little to appease Chairman Thompson, who issued a press release in which he said, “The department is looked to for setting security standards and enforcing laws, and here they are doing just the opposite. This is the second time DHS is missing the mark on cargo security and it is two times too many. We shouldn’t be waiting any longer for DHS to set standards for equipment that already exists.”
Chertoff also told Thompson that the “10+2” rulemaking is in the final stages of review by the Office of Management and Budget and that he anticipates publication of a proposed rule by the end of the year. Under the rule, which has been under development for more than a year, importers will be required to submit a security filing with 10 pieces of advance information about the manufacturer and consignee and ocean carriers will submit two pieces of data about loading status of the container to help with intelligence-based screening of cargo.
Responding to Thompson’s concerns about the Global Trade Exchange pilot project, Chertoff said the use of a private-sector data clearinghouse for non-traditional commercial transaction data will allow the department to better identify suspect shipments. DHS last week issued a Request for Quotations from pre-certified technology vendors to develop a pilot project. Chertoff said DHS expects to issue a task order for the work in the next 30 to 45 days, subject to available funding.
DHS considers the GTX project an extension of the Container Security Initiative and the Secure Freight Initiative and would look to draw money from those accounts if separate appropriations scheduled for 2008 are not forthcoming, he said.
Congress has yet to pass the DHS appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008, which began in September. Most of the government has been operating under a continuing resolution for several weeks.
“We believe that GTX should be viewed as a developmental process through which CBP, private-sector vendors and the trade community will develop an advanced, forward-thinking cargo data warehouse,” Chertoff said, noting that the designated vendor will select voluntary participants from the trade community and foreign customs agencies and that CBP will monitor the process and brief industry on the program’s goals.
“CBP fully recognizes the importance of trade community participation in the development of this program and believes the GTX concept — a trade database built and maintained by the private sector — presents the trade with an opportunity to participate and provide input at a level and to a degree that would not be possible under the traditional development process where the government is the sole customer,” he said. ' Eric Kulisch